Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday October 04, 2012 @07:04AM
from the don't-track-me-bro dept.

theodp writes "GeekWire reports that Microsoft is sticking to its decision to implement 'Do-Not-Track' as the default for IE 10, despite drawing the ire of corporate America, the Apache Software Foundation, and the FTC Chairman. Representatives of a veritable Who's Who of Corporate America — e.g., GM, IBM, BofA, Walmart, Merck, Allstate, AT&T, Motorola — signed off on a letter blasting Microsoft for its choice. 'By presenting Do Not Track with a default on,' the alliance argues, 'Microsoft is making the wrong choice for consumers.' The group reminds Microsoft that Apache — whose Platinum Sponsors have branded Microsoft's actions a deliberate abuse of open standards and designed its software to ignore the 'do-not-track' setting if the browser reaching it is IE 10. It also claims that the FTC Chairman, formerly supportive of Microsoft's privacy efforts, now recognizes 'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'"

I don't really understand what people are crying about. Microsoft has said that they will try to make IE10 better for users and this is one of the features implemented to enable that. Note that Microsoft itself owns an advertising network and is part of the advertising committee - it's that much that Microsoft wants to protect their users.

Of course, Microsoft's actions aren't new. They have always cared about privacy. Their tracking and beta debugging has always been opt-in. This in unlike Google where you often cannot even opt-out, and it's never opt-in in any case.

Microsoft simply cares about users privacy and advertisers are crying about it. Too bad for them, I say. Advertisers on TV manage to work without any tracking, it should work on the internet too.

The problem is browsers like Firefox have (as is usual for them) chosen to ignore the wishes of users and opt people in to tracking by default.

As a tool for protecting privacy directly it's meaningless regardless of what the advertisers say they will or wont do if it can simply be ignored. As a legal instrument for making it explicit as to whether someone has opted in to being tracked or not it's great, if all browsers adopt it it may even become legally binding in some countries over time.

This is one of those few times where Microsoft is actually doing the right thing for end users, though I suspect it's still for selfish reasons (i.e. to harm Google's ad revenue).

Advertisers ignoring DNT is bad for customers because those who are concerned about being "tracked" for advertising purposes have no way to turn off tracking.

Not everyone falls into the category of being concerned however. In fact, most people probably benefit from advertisers "tracking" them (that is, an anonymous, secure, computer determining what ads to show based upon the websites a browser has recently visited, largely to ensure that ads appear that are relevent to that person's interests.) Long bef

If you think we don't benefit from tracking, then you probably want a browser that people who have agreed to respect that decision on the part of the users will listen to when it says that the user has affirmatively chosen to opt-out of tracking (which is what the DNT flag is defined to mean in the standard, a standard for which Microsoft is on the workgroup and has not requested that the meaning be changed). Since Microsoft has announced

I haven't used Windows for a few years, but from reading articles on the subject I was under the impression that the user was presented with a dialog the first time they run IE10 asking if they wish to enable the header. The advertisers' complaint seems to be more that it's easy to enable in IE10, whereas other browsers require you to hunt in menus or in settings.

I disagree that Microsoft is 'undermining' DnT. They might be providing an excuse for advertizes to ignore it, but they would have done that anyway if significant numbers of people started using it.

Make no mistake, advertizes are the scummy party here. They are the ones who are intentionally ignoring a flag requesting that people not be tracked. Bashing Microsoft is almost victim blaming here.. someone else decided to be a dick because Microsoft did something that would be pro-consumer, and yet they ar

The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default. So by making it default, they're breaking the standard. I'm all for not-tracking, but if everyone's agreed to a certain standard and that it must be implemented a certain way, then they should follow that or else try to get it changed (good luck).

Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.

Sounds more like a criminal move on Apache's part if it's ignoring what the program is set for. Whether MS turns it on by default or the user turns it on, Apache has NO BUSINESS ignoring the setting....

I am not sure I agree with people who are saying that turning it on by default is not a 'true indicator of user preference' since, after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it. So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative then having 'tracking is fine with me' be the default.

So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative...

It should be argued!

It just goes to show how out of step we supposedly knowlegeable users are from the web as it is today. Apache, et al, believe it it's an advertising vehicle and that's the way it's supposed to be because a lot of the web is driven by advertising.

The web was not designed to enable advertising. It was designed to disseminate information easily.

This is about the first time I find myself defending Microsoft in decades. They got this right. Apache and its ilk should ask the users whether they "wish to see a richer, more personalized web experience by enabling the sending of the user's personal web surfing history to select websites" if they want this.

DNT should be the default. WTF do they think DNT means, ffs?!? It means we don't like it to be a surveillance based society by default!

Right on. I ran out of Mod points or you would be getting one from me for that post. Since when is using the internet an implicit agreement to track my every move? If others don't mind then fine but I want to have the choice and the default option should always be opt out unless I specify otherwise. Microsoft did get it right here and I hope that the other browsers follow suit. I'm not the biggest MS fan either but I give them credit where credit is due.

Yeah, I can't believe that anybody is bothering to defend Apache. They deserve no support in this. Either way, some users will be too lazy to switch. Therefore, the default setting should be in the best interests, and/or preferences of the user.

Right on. I ran out of Mod points or you would be getting one from me for that post.

Thanks.

Microsoft did get it right here and I hope that the other browsers follow suit.

The real trouble here is the DNT Standard was designed by and for advertisers, not users. Now, they're bitching because it's being seen for what it is; a lie to users. Now, in order to fix this fsckup, we need to lobby browser developers to build in features that enforce DNT whether the website we visit wants to honour DNT or not. Thanks a lot!:-P

Since tracking tends to be embedded hidden places spread out among many 3rd party sights, it would be pretty difficult for most users to even know if they are being tracked in the first place, much less avoid those sites.

Well tracking is about a little more than just visiting a server. Because visiting a *site* usually ends up in you accessing lots of servers. So while visiting multiple sites, you create sessions with these servers that now know what sites you like to visit. It's not just about being tracked on a site people have problems with, it's being tracked *across* sites.

The problem is that it's not as easy as it sounds to "quickly leave that site". Of course one could block the servers that track you, which is what many of us are doing. Or you could politely ask them not to track you by sending a DNT header.

*shrug* the internet did just fine before advertizes started using it for their own purposes. I suspect that if ad revenue went down things would be fine.

Besides, we are talking about one additional (and kinda creepy) metric, not stopping advertizing. They can still place ads, they can still place community specific ads on community specific sites (kinda like how, I don't know, most targeted advertizing is done).. it would simply make it so they could not target ads based off other sites you have previously visited. I doubt ad revenue would actually go down, though they might have to do a little more *gasp* work....

That depends on whether he was speaking literally or figuratively. I immediately recognized (assumed) that tonywestonuk was speaking figuratively, in which case he is right, but if he was speaking literally (as you apparently assume) then you are right.

"there can never be a law to make it a crime"

Are you speaking literally or figuratively? Of course, literally speaking, there could easily be a law to make it a crime.

"microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference."

I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion. It seems to me that almost everyone would prefer the setting and thus Microsoft's actions have set the default setting according to the majority of the actual user preference. Similarly, Microsoft also has anti-spam featured turned on automatically in its email systems based on the assumption that people don't want to receive spam. Would you decry that as a violation of "true" user preference?

Personally I am shocked that Microsoft is taking this action. It's the number-one most consumer-friendly thing I've ever heard of them doing -- literally.

It's well-known that whether you make a system opt-in or opt-out, the vast majority will stick with whatever is the default, because they don't want to be bothered with such details.

Advertisers want an opt-in DNT because they know most people won't bother to turn it on. An opt-out DNT means most people will leave it on, because they probably won't even know about it to turn it off (assuming they'd want to.)

...people who have made a choice to react in one way to the information the flag is supposed to communicate are perfectly justified in ignoring it when it is sent by that browser, since in that case it no longer communicates the same information.

Say what? Do you really believe that even a small majority of web users want to be tracked, if they're made aware of the situation and given a choice? If you DO believe that, read no further - we have nothing to discuss.

However, if you understand that most users WOULDN'T want to be tracked, then having DNT enabled by default communicates the relevant information more accurately. For the vast majority of computer users who have no clue whatsoever about web tracking, (much less DNT), having DNT turned ON refl

... its a means of communicate a very specific decision on the part of the user...

And why is it wrong for that very specific decision to be to enable tracking?

Because you think the web is for advertising as that's where your bread and butter is. You live by page views and banner ads and Google ranking.

I think Apache has set the evil bit here because that's where the vast majority of its user base lies. I don't particularly care what sort of mishmash you people believe the DNT standard is supposed to be. Think back to the initial concept. "Say, some people don't like all this ubiquitous tracking. Maybe we ought to come up with something that users can do about it?" You see that as a threat to your bread and butter, and now you're bitching about someone deciding that maybe all that tracking ought to be opt-in.

I spent years crafting a web page to disseminate things I learned to anyone who wanted to read it. It had no ads, tracked no-one, was appreciated by many, and that's how the web was intended to work.

Now, it's been leveraged and taken over by advertisers who believe it's their personal fiefdom.

You sound like a marketing sleaze with that attitude. DNT should be the default for all applications with users having to opt-in to be tracked.
It amazes me how you think businesses are entitled to stalk people...

It amazes me how you think you are entitled to tell a server, which you are requesting data from, that it is not to remember any details of your visit.

You have every right to remove cookies or even block them; you dont have a right to tell a server operator what to do with HIS logs. Go somewhere else if that is an issue, it is HIS resources you are requesting.

I disagree. I think it most certainly does apply to the Internet. If I choose to disallow Javascript from running on my browser, or I choose not to load certain images, that's my right. Nobody has the right to force my computer to follow instructions that I dislike. This is especially true on the Internet. This kind of attitude was very popular up until the rapid commercialization of the Internet in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when it became subversive (and downright unpatriotic) to assert that these rights exist.

I don't know about you guys, but I always hated how traditional mass media was completely passive and out of my control. Even with the telephone and physical mail, I was pretty much locked out of having any kind of say. Don't want to receive sales calls at dinner time? Too bad. However, now that I finally have some say in the matter, I'm going to passively sat there while my privacy is violated, CPU time is hijacked, and my storage space is wasted. Obviously, it's the principle of the matter, because none of these are actually all that important. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to give up even 0.1% of my CPU time to some jerkoff marketing guy -- the same guy who thinks it's his God-given right to call me at dinner time, fill up my mailbox, and plaster the wilderness with crass advertisements.

For every guy like me, there's ten that doesn't give a shit about any of this stuff. They'd sell out their neighbors' privacy for a coupon or free gift. I'm no threat to corporate America. Just leave me alone, and I'll keep my anarchist ranting limited to indignant posts on obscure web sites. Piss me off, and you'll just motivate me to break through my apathy and became more extreme. Hell, I might even vote, if you push me far enough.

It undermines the purpose of the header. Consider those places where websites are legally or morally obliged to respect any user who actively asks not to be tracked. A website in such a place would have been obliged to respect the header. But by enabling that header by default, Microsoft is undermining that obligation. When the header no longer means that the user has actively asked not to be tracked, then we cannot expect websites to treat it as such. And then we are back to a situation where users have no way of indicating, that they do not want to be tracked.

Actually I think there should have been three possible values for that header. User has opted in, user has opted out, and user has not taken initiative to change anything on his own. That would leave the default choice up to the websites, which I consider better than leaving the default choice up to the browser vendor. But more importantly, it would have made the semantics of the header slightly more clear than a boolean. And by making it possible for websites to really implement either opt-in or opt-out, then we can start pushing for sites to do one or the other. With only a boolean header and browsers behaving differently, you can't even draw a line between sites implementing opt-in and those implementing opt-out.

But ultimately, this header is just an attempt at patching over a model, which is fundamentally broken in the first place. Cookies were too easy to set when first introduced. Browsers were not working in the best interest of the user. Websites have been allowed to abuse cookies in ways that were not in the users' interest for far too long. By now any browser trying to serve the user better will end up providing users with a bad user experience because of many sites breaking. Had browsers been more restrictive in the first place, then sites wouldn't have been using cookies in the ways they do now.

Let's face it. Nothing is going to change unless Google, Microsoft and Mozilla can agree to move together. Because they each have such large fractions of the browser market. If they can agree on a new model, which works in the user's interest and is enforceable by the browser, then things will change.

Or more realistic,, rather than your spin-doctor question: Do you want websites tracking you so that they know what other sites you visit so they can server you ads they think are relevant based on their spying on you?

I just finished reading the letter and found it disgusting. If you took it out of "the internet" and put it in the real world things like

By setting the Internet Explorer browser to block data collection, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to collect web viewing data of up to 43 percent of the browsers used by Americans.

would read more like

By setting the curtains to closed by default, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to peep through windows of up to 43 percent of the houses used by Americans.

To top it off, they have gems like this

A simple example of advertising in the television medium makes this point clear. If consumers were presented a choice of whether they want advertisements on network television to be broadcast, consumers would likely choose “no advertising.” But if 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.

They're acting like MS is installing adblock and turning it on by default. What MS is doing is making the internet more like TV, where the adds are dumb and have to be generally targeted at the type of site, as opposed to creepily personalized.

A simple example of advertising in the television medium makes this point clear. If consumers were presented a choice of whether they want advertisements on network television to be broadcast, consumers would likely choose “no advertising.” But if 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.

They're acting like MS is installing adblock and turning it on by default. What MS is doing is making the internet more like TV, where the adds are dumb and have to be generally targeted at the type of site, as opposed to creepily personalized.

Exactly (I was going to make a similar point).

Do Not Track is not the same as Do Not Advertise. But properly respecting the Do Not Track request would ruins the revenue stream for all the data aggregators, and would prevent advertising agencies from claiming comparative advantages over their competitors (false anyway, in all likelihood).

I don't really understand what people are crying about. Microsoft has said that they will try to make IE10 better for users and this is one of the features implemented to enable that.

Actually, their implementation is useless (unless you want to explicitly opt IN).

DNT is not a purely technical solution. It only works in conjunction with legislation (or voluntary codes of conduct). These rules may either say: (i) tracking is allowed, unless the user explicitly objects; or (ii) tracking is forbidden, unless the user explicitly expresses his/her consent.

Microsoft's implementation only works in case (ii). The user can express his/her consent to be tracked by unchecking the option ("DNT: no")

What nonsense is this? It's _useless_ because you say so? Let's review.

Legally, there's no difficulty. If any website wants to know if they can track someone, all they need to do is put up a popup window asking "Pretty please, can I track your every move?". Of course they already do that with all users, right? No? Well, they should, it's common sense.

Now, DNT is quite useful. If "DNT: yes", then the website should disable tracking, no need to popup the window at all. If "DNT: no", then the user indicate

If the industry effort is opt in to privacy then damn right I am against it. If the standard demands opt in only then the standard is wrong and should be ignored and if sites decide to ignore the DNT tag then it is time for regulators to step in.

Without legislation, the options were "opt in" or nothing at all. By not supporting opt in, you support nothing at all, because there is nothing mandating the DNT feature be honored.

It might have been honored if only those objecting to tracking toggled it. Those who don't object to tracking probably don't care. If they don't care, they certainly won't enable it. The move negates all of the efforts of everyone involved in the DNT movement. All. Of. Them.

All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me

This is wrong. MS has DNT as opt-in, and they clearly and specifically notifies the user of this on install. This has been well documented. Fielding is wrong here. Doubly so, since his patch would not only affect the people who didn't opt in (they do not exist) it would also affect people like me who specifically wanted DNT on. As I mentioned in another posting, this makes Apache (actually anyone using it with Fielding's patch) a law-breaker in Europe and liable for massive law suits. If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.

If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.

If the DNT setting is on by default then it's Microsoft deciding in favour of enabling DNT, not individual users. Think about that for a second: how much respect will advertisers have for the DNT setting if it's not a user choice to enable it?

This. The only acceptable standard for sharing personal data is strictly opt-in, and defaulting to do-not-track creates such a standard. This may cause problems for some dubiously ethical targeted-advertising business models, but that is their problem and nobody else's. The Web thrived before targeting, and it will thrive after targeting.

No, it provides an opt-out standard. An opt-in standard would be sending a "Track-Me: Yes" header.

Actually, its an opt-both standard.

The DNT draft standard supports both a representation of an affirmative choice to opt-in to tracking ("0") value and to opt-out ("1") and the ability to express no preference (unset). It doesn't require a user-agent that supports the standard to offer the opt-in option, though (only the choice between "1" and unset is required, offering "0" is optional.)

'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'"
The only harm is to these business' pocketbooks.. For once I'm on MS side in this matter...

No, no, you see, you need to look at this from the "trickle down" aspect of economics. See, corporations are good, you need to give them a lot of money and then they in turn give that to Americans via jobs and opportunities. So the best way for them to get money is to be able to track consumers so we need to make sure that consumers can be tracked. Ideally, it would be illegal for people to own bank accounts or liquid cash and everyone would basically spend their paycheck within a few days of getting it. And they would spend it online and all the corporations would know where everyone was spending every dollar. That way, the money can work as hard as possible for society by being in corporations' pockets. And then unemployment would be really low because there would be a lot of jobs with all this extra money in corporations. Because they're undeniably good entities and they have more rights than you do because you're not supplying jobs to yourselves, the corporations are.

Why else would it be illegal for you to record every site and place your neighbor visits without their consent but be completely legal and, in fact, desired to allow a faceless corporation to do it? Duh, because we as a completely screwed up society have given the richer entities more rights than an average citizen.

That's basically how Karl Marx described how capitalism would evolve. And how Mussolini claimed Italian Fascism worked. And now it's 2012 and the Western world is re-adopting Fascism (in which corporations assume the role of Government).

Yet there are lots of posters on Slashdot that will tell you they trust unelected, opaque corporations more than they go the US Government, even though their grandfathers fought WW2 to destroy Fascism.

Ideally, it would be illegal for people to own bank accounts or liquid cash and everyone would basically spend their paycheck within a few days of getting it.

Close, but not far enough. The economy would benefit even more if you didn't even get the dollars in the first place. Instead, you get credit that can be used to buy products from your employer and their official partners.

This way the company keeps all the dollars, and can use them to improve their products and services without having to show a labor cost on the balance sheet. Usage of the credits is easily tracked by the employer and partners, and the black market for drugs, hookers, gambling, or anything else that requires cash is exterminated. Everybody wins!

Except you cannot make it default. Businesses are willing to work with someone who goes out of there way to say "please do not track", but of course that message becomes meaningless as soon as it is the default.It is harming consumers when it basically negates this "do not track" setting

It seems that once every twenty years or so, Microsoft does something right. This is one of them. If advertisers ignore the do not track flag, it's the advertiser's fault.

For the first time I can remember, Apache is very, Very, VERY wrong. I hope Linux distributions fix this Apache bug before shipping. The Apache Foundation should not be imposing its misguided politics onto its web server.

Why wouldn't Advertisers ignore it anyway, then? The standard was created to help user privacy, if users all started opting in to the "Do not track" then what makes you so sure that the advertisers wouldn't decide to ignore it anyway?

Wrll see here's the thing, "Do not track" according to the advertisers doesn't actually mean "Do not track" but instead means "Don't send me targeted ads". In other words, regardless as to your choice of opting in or not, you're still going to get tracked anyway - regardless of browser.

That the FTC sees "harm to consumers" just shows that the FTC is a revolving door for industry lobbyists. I mean, it's like putting every new number on the "do not call" list, and requiring consumers to opt-in to intrusive advertising. How horrible that would be!/sarcasm

I am still not convinced MS isn't doing another "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". They embraced DNT, then they extended it by turning it on by default which extinguished because the industry now refuses to support it.

Mind you, this could only be true if MS was a totally evil company that does anything for a buck. Which could never be true of course for one of the most respected software and advertising companies in the world.

The problem is that DNT is not only optional to the users, but also to the advertisers. If everyone has DNT, advertisers will just ignore it for IE users. We have a choice of letting the privacy-conscious minority use DNT, or noone.

What's truly disgusting here is all these companies arguing that users should have to opt in to privacy. Hopefully privacy groups and laws around privacy will come down hard on companies that try to ignore the DNT. If tracking is so critical then companies should be making their case to users why they should turn them on, if they manage to convince people well and good, but this bullshit of we will only obey the DNT if only a small group of tech savy people use it is just pathetic. It is almost understandab

While I agree with most of what you're saying, Apache was being pragmatic. Without laws to mandate that DNT is respected, the only chance in hell of it being respected was if it was 100% user initiated to set the DNT flag. Now that it's not, not even those who might have honored it will now. We went from it possibly having some effect to zero possibility of it having any effect.

Technological compromise has now failed, and the likelihood of a legislative one is roughly the same as the percentage of campaign

I can see that point of view but completely disagree with it. A half arsed standard is worse than none at all, with a such a poorly thought out standard that advertising know the vast majority of users aren't informed enough to take advantage of they will be able to safely continue to track the majority while at the same time be able to crow about how wonderfully self regulated they are and how they don't need anyone looking into their privacy practises. It is about time this industry was cleaned up. Tracki

It is not mandatory for advertisers to honour the "Do not track" flag. Internet users need to turn the option on themselves, or they have not expressed their desire to not be trackedthemselves, only to accept the default settings as Microsoft deems fit.

If Microsoft enable it by default, it definitely won't be honoured. If it is only set by the actions of the user, it might be honoured. Now Microsoft decides to piss in the advertiser's cornflakes and expects them to still eat them. Nice job.

Unlikely. Right now, the choice is "Don't look at the sites which use behavioural advertising if you don't want to be tracked" or "Run an adblocker which cuts the revenue stream from free-to-read sites". With the third Do Not Track option, people can still be shown advertising without worrying about behavioural profiling. It's a middle ground for everyone; Punters get privacy, sites get revenue from ad clicks, advertisers sell stuff through adverts.

It is not mandatory for advertisers to honour the "Do not track" flag. Internet users need to turn the option on themselves, or they have not expressed their desire to not be trackedthemselves, only to accept the default settings as Microsoft deems fit.

Complete irrelevant bullshit. Every piece of software ever created, every product ever created, comes with certain default settings. That's how the world works. Get over it already. And if you're Internet Explorer, you're the problem.

They do. When they install IE, they are asked. They can answer "Sure, enable DNT" or they can do otherwise. MS is following the standard. Apache is breaking it. The problem here is that Fielding checked on a pre-release of IE10, and that installer didn't ask. He made his decision based on faulty information and now he can't admit he was wrong. If he persists, Apaches reputation will be badly tarnished since it is Apache not following the standard. Apache users will also be exposed to serious legal action in Europe, where internet privacy laws (probably) mandates the honoring of DNT.

Older people are the only ones that use ie, older people that advertisers do not target as much, largely because their spending habits are set, so this foe outrage seems suspicious. The only reason I can come up with as to why advertisers would publicly criticize Microsoft (please put on your tin foil hats) is that the new ie has a security hole that advertisers can use and are trying to get their target demographic to switch. Otherwise they are giving ie a boat load of good publicity that may steer people

Advertisers: This is not the "wrong choice for consumers." It's the right choice for PEOPLE. It just happens to be negative for advertisers who have grown fat and lazy using a medium that is nearly free and mostly paid for by the 'consumers.'

Screw you all. Respect the eyes of the people using the internet. I stopped watching TV because (1) they want me to pay for it and (2) I still get my intelligence assaulted with advertisements. I pay for internet but I can control who advertises as me and I will. I don't owe you a living at my expense. Take a page out of Google's playbook -- give us some actual value and give us a reason not to block you sorry asses.

So advertisers go out there not saying what they mean, once again. Why can't they just speak the truth?! "It hurts our marketing value." Tough shit. BUILD your market and stop riding on the coat tails of other people creating their markets.

How is there opposition to this? Shouldn't "don't track me" be the default for all browsers? How is the FTC against this? Chamber of Commerce I could see... but the FTC is supposed to protect consumers, no? Personally, I think the setting should be inverted to a checkbox that says "Allow advertisers to track my online activities," with it unchecked by default, and inviting people to check it if they want. Let's see how far THAT gets. Stupid.

I couldn't be more torn if was asked to vote AGAINST children being allowed to play outside BUT the person telling me to let the kids play outside had his pants around his ankles. And the child is a nazi.

I mean, who do I root for? The advertisers? Microsoft? IE users? People who don't know how to install ghostery and ad-block?

Can't we mandate that when forced to choose between two evils, we get another option, KILL THEM ALL!

The user community tends to be very vocal in its criticism of Microsoft on all issues, which means that Redmond sees nothing unusual about a lot of people complaining here. Like the boy who cried wolf, if you constantly complain, all complaints get equal treatment. For a company that wants to get things done and not just quit because you object, that means they all get ignored.

Just a thought - and I appreciate it's probably giving far too much credit to Microsoft for joined-up thinking.

But it occurs to me that Microsoft own Bing, which (like any search engine) is paid for through advertising. And if the advertising can be tightly targeted, it's possible to charge a lot more for it. It follows that at least one business unit within Microsoft wants Do Not Track to be a complete disaster.

However, the days when Microsoft could simply not bother to implement something - or implement it so badly as to make it pointless - are over. Particularly as regards web-based technologies.

So, how to deal with this? Do Not Track is based on an honour system that was only ever going to work if a relatively small percentage of people took advantage of it. By making it a default, that honour system breaks down almost immediately. I honestly can't see very many businesses even bothering to install such a function, much less enable it.

The beauty of doing it this way is it gives Microsoft the opportunity to kill Do Not Track while at the same time getting positive publicity from tech-illiterate journalists for being "the only browser to ask websites to respect your publicity by default". Win-win.

But it occurs to me that Microsoft own Bing, which (like any search engine) is paid for through advertising. And if the advertising can be tightly targeted, it's possible to charge a lot more for it. It follows that at least one business unit within Microsoft wants Do Not Track to be a complete disaster.

You don't understand what's going on in business. Google is the big advertising monster, the 800+ lb gorilla of advertising. In order to keep their advertising business running, they do their best to throw spanners in the works for anyone big enough to possibly muscle in. Thats' why you have "Google+" fighting Facebook. That's why you have Google apps fighting Microsoft. That's why you have Android fighting Apple. None if these are there to make money for Google, they are all there for the sole purpose of hurting big IT companies who might hurt Google's advertising business.

And that's what Bing is for, not to make money, but to hurt Google. That's why Apple isn't using Google Maps anymore, to take money away from Google. So no, Microsoft is absolutely happy with Do Not Track and anything that makes advertisers pay less money to Google.

I understand your conspiracy post and, who knows, perhaps that's even the case.

However, intentionally derailing DNT is good for users regardless.

Even the most vehement defenders of DNT who lambast IE10's default in comments here suggest that it 'advertisers might' respect it, that it's based on an 'honor' system, and that its entire premise is based on 'not too many people enabling it'.Advertisers might. Honor. Not too many people.That should sound like "never going to work" to even the most clueless of p

In the last 20 years Advertisers have been creeping further and further into our lives and we (the average citizen) have had little to no say in the matter, but now we are finally putting our foot down and declaring "No More". Ad Agencies are upset because of the loss to their cash intake, as well as they are like spoiled children who are being told "NO". They don't like it. The image that comes to mind is the picture of mom saying to her child, "no cookies", and the child stomps, pouts, cries, and has tantrums, and when none of that works, they devise a way to climb up to that upper cabinet to get the cookie jar.

It's time to get rid of all the cookies from the house so there is no demand for the cookie that doesn't exist.

This article is severely misleading. The supposed complaints about open web standards violations don't come from Apache Platinum Sponsors, of which one is Microsoft who is obviously _not_ complaining, and you can look at the list and decide for yourself which one's might worry about user's privacy and which one's wouldn't. The complaint is just some mail thread of Apache developers having a moan, where some of them think apparently that privacy settings shouldn't be set by default but should set knowingly by the user (and others vehemently say that this argument is nonsense). And they are _not_ complaining that "don't track" is the default, but that there is a default. And they are not complaining to Microsoft, this is just an Apache internal discussion.

So this also says that Apache will ignore the Do-Not-Track flag if the browser is Internet Explorer 10 [cnet.com]. I understand the argument that setting DNT:on without the explicit user consent is questionable, though that's really what 90% of the users want anyway. But how is ignoring the DNT flag of all IE 10 users without knowing whether it was set manually or not any better?

Something feels very wrong when an open-source project sides not with the general population but with big corporations out to invade their privacy in any way they can.

Seriously, people blaming MS because they actual implement something users want. Going on as if the advertising companies and people who want to track you are some kink of hero against the oppression of people not wanting to be tracked.